site_audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description earns credit by disclosing non-obvious traits: each inspected URL costs 1 API call, sitemap_url is included in the report but not crawled, and the sample is not coverage-complete. It does not mention rate limits or runtime, but this is solid added context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and its key limitation are front-loaded before the Args block, and every sentence adds information. The docstring-style Args block is slightly verbose but each entry is necessary given the schema provides no descriptions.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a read-only audit tool with cost-per-URL implications, the description covers scope limits, parameter formats, and cost drivers adequately; only cross-tool routing guidance is absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it gives the exact site_url format ("sc-domain:example.com"), clarifies sitemap_url is report-only and not crawled, and gives max_inspect's range, default, and per-call cost. Minor gaps like behavior at max_inspect=0 remain, but this is strong compensation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States specific verbs and resources: sitemap submission health, performance, and indexing issues on a sampled set of top pages. It also bounds its own scope (sample, not full coverage). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like analyze_sitemap or get_sitemaps, which is the only clarity gap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the sampling caveat ('cannot establish indexing coverage across the entire property'), which tells the agent when the result is insufficient. However, it never says when to pick this over analyze_sitemap, get_sitemaps, or crawl_site_seo, nor does it name prerequisites beyond the property URL.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.